Analysis of the Sonopet Ultrasonic Bone Aspirator to Traditional Instrumentation for Endoscopic Suturectomy for Craniosynostosis.
Journal
The Journal of craniofacial surgery
ISSN: 1536-3732
Titre abrégé: J Craniofac Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9010410
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 May 2021
01 May 2021
Historique:
pubmed:
9
12
2020
medline:
18
11
2021
entrez:
8
12
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The goal of endoscopic treatment for craniosynostosis is to remove the fused suture and achieve calvarial remodeling with external orthosis. To reduce the need for secondary surgery and to minimize blood loss, instruments that maximize bone removal while minimizing blood loss and risk of dural injury are evolving. The authors therefore assess the safety and efficacy of the Sonopet Ultrasonic Bone Aspirator (UBA) (Stryker, Kalamazoo, MI) for endoscopic suturectomy compared to traditional instrumentation at our institution. Retrospective chart review of consecutive endoscopic suturectomies performed from 2011 to 2019 at Weill Cornell Medical Center was conducted, including demographics, cephalic index, surgical indications, operative time, cosmetic and functional results, complications, estimated blood loss (EBL), re-operation rate, length of stay, and length of helmet therapy. These variables were then compared between the Sonopet and non-Sonopet cohorts. Of the 60 patients who underwent endoscopic suturectomy, 16 cases (26.7%) utilized the Sonopet. Mean operative time was 2.8 ± 0.4 hours in the Sonopet group, compared to 3.2 ± 1.2 hours (P = 0.05) without the Sonopet. EBL was 17.8 ± 23.9 cc versus 34.7 ± 75.5 cc (P = 0.20) with versus without the Sonopet respectively. Length of stay and duration of helmet therapy were similar in both groups, ranging from 1 to 3 days (P = 0.68) and 7.25 to 12 months (P = 0.30) respectively. There were no reoperations in the Sonopet group with a mean follow up of 9.18 months. There were 3 reoperations in the non-Sonopet group with a mean follow up of 11.3 months. Among the cases utilizing the Sonopet, 13 (81%) were metopic and three (19%) were coronal synostoses. Of the non-Sonopet cases, 27 (61%) were sagittal, 8 (18%) were metopic, 7 (16%) were coronal, and 2 (5%) were lambdoid synostoses. The use of the Sonopet resulted in a mean decrease in operative time at our institution (P = 0.18). Lower EBL and reoperation rates with comparable LOS and helmet therapy duration were also seen. This modality should be considered a safe and effective adjunct in appropriate endoscopic craniosynostosis cases.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33290334
pii: 00001665-202105000-00030
doi: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000007312
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
936-939Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 by Mutaz B. Habal, MD.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.
Références
Alford J, Derderian CA, Smartt JM. Surgical treatment of nonsyndromic unicoronal craniosynostosis. J Craniofac Surg 2018; 29:1199–1207.
Jimenez DF, Barone CM. Endoscopic craniectomy for early surgical correction of sagittal craniosynostosis. J Neurosurg 1998; 88:77–81.
Magge SN, Bartolozzi AR, Almeida ND, et al. A comparison of endoscopic strip craniectomy and pi craniectomy for treatment of sagittal craniosynostosis. J Neurosurg Pediatr 2019; 23:708–714.
Chan JWH, Stewart CL, Stalder MW, et al. Endoscope-assisted versus open repair of craniosynostosis: a comparison of perioperative cost and risk. J Craniofac Surg 2013; 24:170–174.
Derderian CA, Bartlett SP. Open cranial vault remodeling: the evolving role of distraction osteogenesis. J Craniofac Surg 2012; 23:229–234.
Akingbola OA, Singh D, Srivastav SK, et al. Intensive care unit course of infants and children after cranial vault reconstruction for craniosynostosis. BMC Res Notes 2011; 4:347.
Berry-Candelario J, Ridgway EB, Grondin RT, et al. Endoscope-assisted strip craniectomy and postoperative helmet therapy for treatment of craniosynostosis. Neurosurg Focus 2011; 31:E5.
Fearon J. Discussion: nonsyndromic unilateral coronal synostosis a comparison of fronto-orbital advancement and endoscopic suturectomy. Plast Reconstr Surg 2019; 143:849–851.
Manue ID, Gundamraj R, Misra M. Instrumentation report: high power drill systems in neurosurgery. Neurol Res 1997; 19:654–656.
Nordera P, Spanio di Spilimbergo S, Stenico A, et al. The cutting-edge technique for safe osteotomies in craniofacial surgery: the piezosurgery bone scalpel. Plast Reconstr Surg 2007; 120:1989–1995.
Inoue T, Ikezaki K, Sato Y. Ultrasonic surgical system (SONOPET) for microsurgical removal of brain tumors. Neurol Res 2000; 22:490–494.
Sivak-Callcott JA, Linberg JV, Patel S. Ultrasonic bone removal with the sonopet omni: a new instrument for orbital and lacrimal surgery. Arch Ophthalmol 2005; 123:1595–1597.
Samy RN, Krishnamoorthy K, Pensak ML. Use of a novel ultrasonic surgical system for decompression of the facial nerve. Laryngoscope 2007; 117:872–875.
Kikuchi K, Higami T, Imai K, et al. Aortic valve replacement for calcified aortic valve and annulus with ultrasonic decalcification. Kyobu Geka 2006; 59:301–305.
Vrcek I, Starks V, Mancini R, et al. Use of an ultrasonic bone curette (Sonopet) in orbital and oculoplastic surgery. Bayl Univ Med Cent Proc 2015; 28:91–93.
Salami A, Mora R, Mora F, et al. Learning curve for piezosurgery in well-trained otological surgeons. Otolaryngol Neck Surg 2010; 142:120–125.
Chappell MC, Moe KS, Chang S-H. Learning curve for use of the sonopet ultrasonic aspirator in endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy. Orbit 2014; 33:270–275.
Baddour HM, Lupa MD, Patel ZM. Comparing use of the Sonopet(®) ultrasonic bone aspirator to traditional instrumentation during the endoscopic transsphenoidal approach in pituitary tumor resection. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol 2013; 3:588–591.